Editorial: Can we succeed in Afghanistan where others have stumbled?

Tuesday

Mar 31, 2009 at 12:01 AMMar 31, 2009 at 3:38 PM

Over the centuries, the area now known as Afghanistan has been invaded by everybody from Alexander the Great to Genghis Khan to the Soviet Union, with limited long-term success or none at all. So absolutely, it's fair to question President Barack Obama's decision last week to send 4,000 more soldiers.

Over the centuries, the area now known as Afghanistan has been invaded by everybody from Alexander the Great to Genghis Khan to the Soviet Union, with limited long-term success or none at all. It's the place English poet Rudyard Kipling wrote about in 1892 in "The Young British Soldier":

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains

And the women come out to cut up what remains

Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains

An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."

So absolutely, it's fair to question President Barack Obama's decision last week to send 4,000 more soldiers - on top of the 17,000 combat troops he already authorized, which will bring the total U.S. force level to about 60,000 - to continue America's war on terrorism in that "graveyard of empires."

What makes this different or more likely to be successful than past incursions into Afghanistan, or even this nation's continued occupation of Iraq?

First, this is not a trip of conquest but one of defense against the al-Qaida agents who attacked us in the first place on Sept. 11, 2001. We've also had prior success in subduing those enemies, as we did seven years ago before inexplicably taking a detour with our attentions and our dollars into Iraq. Now they've bounced back, and with a vengeance.

Second, arguably this is a necessary war, not a war of choice, which may not help but isn't as likely to hurt popular support for the conflict. For those who remember the towers falling on Sept. 11, at least we're again going after the guys who were actually responsible.

Third, this is an attempt at a regional solution, focusing not just on Afghanistan, where al-Qaida has reportedly regrouped, but on Pakistan, where terrorist factions have found safe haven and Osama bin Laden himself may be hiding. In effect, we cannot deal with one without contending with the other. The border there seems to make no difference to those crossing it. Recognizing that, Obama is asking Congress to spend $1.5 billion a year in Pakistan over the next five years.

Fourth, this plan has more than just a military component. Obama also is sending hundreds of civilians to Afghanistan to help develop the civil infrastructure necessary to be considered a real nation and to build an economy based on something other than the opium trade. In effect, poppies can't be the only cash crop. For now the extra 4,000 troops are not to be used in combat, but in training the Afghan military and civilian police.

Is this nation building? Sure it is. And had the Bush administration put more emphasis on that in Iraq from the get-go, had the so-called "benchmarks" been enforced on Baghdad the way they promise to be on Kabul and Islamabad, we might not have hit such a rough patch there. It helps that we have the support of at least the Afghan leadership going in.

Fifth, on that same score, Obama's goals here are more limited, and arguably more realistic. "We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or dictate its future," he said. "We have a clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future." We don't have to hit a foreign policy home run there, just see to it that Afghanistan/Pakistan is no longer a launching pad for terrorist strikes.

Finally, it is heartening, not depressing, to read that there are voices of dissent with regard to Afghanistan within the administration, most notably from Vice President Joe Biden, and that policy is being driven by pragmatism - what the military commanders in the field believe is likely to be most effective - rather than by some black-and-white ideological bent. A leader needs to hear from the naysayers, because certitude can be so fatal. In the end, Obama listened to both sides and landed in between - the generals originally wanted 30,000 more troops - with flexibility built in to revisit and revise plans if events on the ground dictate it.

All that said, Afghanistan/Pakistan is a very formidable task. Afghanistan has no history of any stability in government, having experienced nearly every form of it over the last century, from monarchy to republic to communist state to theocracy. It is still a tribal, backward society, with no middle class to speak of. The place is rife with corruption. Whom do we trust?

Some critics believe this still won't be nearly enough troops to cover a nation of nearly 252,000 square miles of often rough terrain (about 50 percent larger than Iraq). They also say the differences between this strategy and the former administration's are more rhetorical than real, and they're not entirely wrong about that.

Meanwhile, Pakistan's focus has a tendency to wander to India. Beyond that, we don't have to guess; we know that Pakistan has nukes, and that they cannot fall into the hands of bin Laden or any of his brethren.

As a result, while no one wants to get "bogged down" in another "quagmire" in Afghanistan, doing nothing is arguably more likely to invite that conclusion than trying this. We'll see.

Peoria Journal Star

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.